JCIT, Bangalore V. M/s Valdel Engineers & Constructors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 1370/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 137021114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V CHANDRASHEKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: FARHAT HUSSAIN QURESHI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Scheme of amalgamation; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 260A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1370/BANG/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE 12(5), BANGALORE-560 001 . APPELLANT. VS. M/S. VALDEL ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS PVT. LTD., NO.9, MEGHDOOTH MANSION, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE. .. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI V. CHANDRASHEKAR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI FARHAT HUSSAIN QURESHI. DATE OF HEARING :03.09.2012. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.09.2012. O R D E R PER SHRI JASON P. BOAZ : THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, BANGALORE DT.21.10.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE AS UNDER : 2.1 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, SET UP AN APPROVED STPI I N THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. IN THE COURSE OF THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE STPI UNDERTAKING WAS DEMERGED AND TRANSFERRED T O M/S. L & T VALDEL ENGINEERING PVT LTD. (I.E. THE RESULTING COMPANY) IN A SCHEME OF DEMER GER AFTER DUE APPROVAL BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA VIDE ITS ORDER IN CO. P. NO. 12 /2005 DT.23.2.2005. IN TERMS OF THE SAID COURT ORDER, THE APPOINTED DATE OF DEMERGER WAS 1 .10.2004. THE ASSESSEE I.E. THE DEMERGED 2 ITA NO.1370/BANG/2011 COMPANY HAS BEEN CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 1 0A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME OF THE STPI UNIT FOR AND FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ONWARDS. 2.2 THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON 31.10.2005 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2,12,73,211 AFTER CLAIMING D EDUCTION OF RS.1,16,68,627 UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT BEING THE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE EXP ORT TURNOVER OF THE STPI UNIT FROM 1.4.2004 TO 30.9.2004 I.E. THE DATE OF THE DEMERGER. THE AS SESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30.11.2007 FOR THE FOL LOWING REASONS : I) THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT THE STPI U NIT WAS STARTED ONLY BY SPLITTING UP OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE UNDERTAKING FORMED BY SPLITT ING UP OF BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, AS HAD BEEN HELD IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEES STPI UNIT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. II) IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE STPI UNIT WAS DEM ERGED AND TRANSFERRED TO M/S. L & T VALDEL ENGINEERING (P) LTD. (RESULTING COMPANY) DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD W.E.F. 1.10.2004, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 (19AA) OF THE ACT, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A (7A) BECOME APPLICABLE AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 005-06. 2.3 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DT.30.11.2 007, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWED BY THE LEA RNED CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER DT.21.10.2011 3 ITA NO.1370/BANG/2011 FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05 IN ITA NOS.616 TO 618/BANG/2008 DT.10.11.2010. 3. REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DT.21.10.2011. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE ARE AS UNDE R : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS OPPO SED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT NO NEW UNIT WAS SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE UNDERTAKING WAS FORMED ONLY BY SPLITTING THE EXISTING BUSINESS AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BYTHE DEPARTMENT AND APPEALS HAVE BEEN FIL ED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AGAINST THE DECISI ON OF THE ITAT. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING T HE RELIEF, RELYING ON THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) IN THE CASE OF L & TRIBUNAL VALDEL EN GINEERING PVT. LTD WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND AN APPEAL HAS B EEN FILED BEFORE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE CIT (APPEALS)S ORDER. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING TH E RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A(7A) WHICH LAY DOWN THAT WHERE ANY UNDERTAKING OF AN INDIAN COMPANY IS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER INDIAN COMPANY IN A SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION OR DEMERGER, NO DEDUCTION SH ALL BE ADMISSIBLE TO THE AMALGAMATING OR DEMERGED COMPANY FOR THE PREVIOUS Y EAR IN WHICH THE AMALGAMATION OR DEMERGER TOOK PLACE. 6. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IN SO FA R AS IT RELATES TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS MAY BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEN D AND/OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED ABOVE. 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED AT S.NOS.1, 6 AND 7 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR THEREON. 5.1 THE GROUNDS RAISED AT S.NOS.2 TO 5 , ARE RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES OF DISPUTE IN THIS APP EAL WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. 5.2 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES ARGUM ENTS MAINLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E CONCEDED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN 4 ITA NO.1370/BANG/2011 ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AN D 2004-05 IN ITA NOS.616 TO 618/BANG/2008 DT.10.11.2010 SQUARELY APPLY TO THE I SSUES RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED AT S.NOS.2 AND 3. HE, HOWEVER, ARGUED THAT THE LEA RNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN GROUNDS AT S.NOS.4 AND 5 BY NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS JUST NOT ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 10A OF THE ACT FOR THIS IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A(7A) OF THE ACT WHICH WERE INTRODUCED W.E.F. 1.4.2004 AND HENCE APPLICABLE FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE TOOK US THROUGH THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 10A(7A) AND STATED THAT IT WAS AMPLY CLEAR FROM THE PROVISIONS THAT UNDER N O CIRCUMSTANCES WAS THIS ASSESSEE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005-06 IN RESPECT OF INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE STPI UNIT WHICH STOOD DEMERGED W.E.F. 1.0.2004 AND THEREBY CEASED TO BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE W.E.F. 1.10.2004. 5.3.1 PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE ARGUED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A(1) OF THE ACT STATE THAT A DEDUCTION OF SUCH PR OFITS AND GAINS AS ARE DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING FROM THE EXPORT OF ARTICLE OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE SHALL BE ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE IN WHOSE IN COME, THE INCOME OF THE UNDERTAKING WHICH IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A, IS INCLUDE D AND NO PART OF SUCH INCOME SHALL BE TAXED FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS SHOWN THE INCOME OF THE UNDERTAKING FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2004 TO 30.9.200 4 AS ITS INCOME AND HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT ON SUCH INCO ME WHICH WAS CORRECTLY ALLOWED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), IN AS MUCH AS THE SAME WAS NO T CLAIMED OR ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN THE HANDS OF THE RESULTING COMPANY VIZ. M/S. L & T VALD EL ENGINEERING (P) LTD. 5 ITA NO.1370/BANG/2011 5.3.2 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A(7A) ARE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THOSE OF SECTION 10A(1) OF THE ACT. WHEREAS, SECTION 10A(1) STATES THAT THE DEDUCTION IS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE A SSESSEE WHO HAS INCLUDED THE INCOME OF THE UNDERTAKING IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME VIS--VIS SECTI ON 10A(7A) WHICH STATES THAT IT IS THE RESULTING COMPANY WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 10A AND NOT THE DEMERGED COMPANY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS THE ASSESSEE, THE DEMERGED COMPANY, WHICH HAS INCLUDED THE INCOME FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2004 TO 30.9.2004 IN ITS RETURN OF I NCOME AND NOT THE RESULTING COMPANY. 5.3.3 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REITERATED THE CONTENTION TAKEN BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), THAT IF IT WERE TO BE HEL D THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A(7A) OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A(1) AND IS AP PLICABLE IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE, THEN AS A NATURAL COROLLARY TO THIS PROPOSITION THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS WOULD EMERGE : I) THE INCOME OF THE STPI UNIT, ARISING OUT OF EXP ORT OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE FROM 1.4.2004 TO 30.9.2004 WILL BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN THE HAN DS OF THE RESULTANT COMPANY I.E. M/S. L & T VALDEL ENGINEERING (P) LTD. AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE DEMERGED COMPANY I.E. M/S. VALDEL ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS PVT. LTD. II) MORE IMPORTANTLY, IN THE EYES OF LAW, FOR THE PURPOSES OF INCOME TAX, THE ENTIRE UNDERTAKING I.E. STPI UNIT, WHICH HAS CARRIED OUT THE EXPORT AC TIVITY, SHALL BE TREATED AS ONE BELONGING TO THE RESULTANT COMPANY I.E. M/S. L & T VALDEL ENGINEERIN G (P) LTD. FOR THE ENTIRE RELEVANT PERIOD 1.4.2004 TO 31.3.2005 IN WHICH SUCH DEMERGER TAKEN PLACE AND NOT AS A UNIT BELONGING TO THE DEMERGED COMPANY I.E. M/S. VALDEL ENGINEERS & CONST RUCTORS PVT. LTD. EVEN FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2004 TO 30.9.2004. IN EFFECT, THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE STPI UNDERTAKING FOR THE ENTIRE PREVIOUS YEAR OUGHT TO BE TREATED AS TURNOVER OF THE RESULTANT COMPANY I.E. M/S. L 6 ITA NO.1370/BANG/2011 & T VALDEL ENGINEERING (P) LTD. AND NO PART OF IT S HOULD BE TREATED AS TURNOVER OF THE DEMERGED COMPANY I.E. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. CONSEQUENTLY THE INCOME ARISING FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER OF THE STPI UNIT FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2004 TO 30.9.2004 SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND BE INCLUDED AS INCOME OF THE RESUL TING COMPANY I.E. M/S. L & T VALDEL ENGINEERING (P) LTD. FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2005 R ELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND THEREFORE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE AC T OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE RESULTING COMPANY I.E. M/S. L & T. VALDEL ENGINEERI NG (P) LTD. 5.3.4 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED R ELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOKBHAI CHIMANBHAI REPORTED IN 56 ITR 42 IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT THE INCOME OF THE STPI UNIT FOR THE ENTIRE YEA R ACCRUES ONLY AT THE END OF THE YEAR ON 31.3.2005 AND ACCRUES TO ITS OWNER ON THE SAID DATE I.E. THE RESULTING COMPANY. THE FACT THAT IN TERMS OF THE DEMERGER THE STPI UNIT WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE RESULTING COMPANY AS A GOING CONCERN WITH ALL ITS ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AS ON T HE DATE OF TRANSFER AND WITHOUT CONSIDERATION ONLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE RESULTING COMPANY IS ENT ITLED TO ENJOY ALL THE ASSETS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE LIABIL ITIES AS ON THE SAID DATE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE ASSET WAS ACQUIRED OR THE LIABILITY WAS CONTRACTED BY THE DEMERGED COMPANY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT SEEKING PERMISSION FOR DEMERGER AND STAT ED THAT THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AS ON 30.9.2004 WHICH STAND TRANSFERRED TO THE RESULTING COMPANY WHICH INCLUDES THE INCOME OF THE STPI UNDERTAKING FOR THIS PERIOD AMOU NTING TO RS.1,16,68,627. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRANS FER OF INCOME TO THE RESULTING COMPANY DEMONSTRATES THAT THIS INCOME SHOULD THEREFORE NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7 ITA NO.1370/BANG/2011 5.3.5 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO ARG UED THAT A HARMONIOUS READING OF SECTION 2(19AA) (WHICH DEFINES DEMERGER) WITH SECTION 72A(4 ) (WHICH DEALS WITH THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF AN UNDERTAKING IN THE EVENT OF DEMERGER) AND SECTION 10A(7A) (WHICH S TATES THAT ONLY THE RESULTING COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 10A FOR THE YEA R IN WHICH THE DEMERGER TAKES PLACE) LEADS US TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS WHEN AN UNDERTAKING WH ICH ENJOYS THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A IS DEMERGED DURING THE COURSE OF A FINA NCIAL YEAR. I) THE DEMERGED COMPANY WILL NOT GET ANY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE DEMERGER TAKES PLACE, IN RESPECT OF TH E SAID UNDERTAKING WHICH STANDS DEMERGED; II) THE RESULTING COMPANY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO AVA IL THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR DURING WHICH THE DEMERGER TAKES PLA CE, IN RESPECT OF THE SAID UNDERTAKING WHICH STANDS DEMERGED; III) THE DEMERGED COMPANY SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO CARRY FORWARD THE BUSINESS LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION RELATABLE TO THE SAID UNDER TAKING FOR AND FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR DURING WHICH THE DEMERGER TAKES PLACE; IV) THE RESULTING COMPANY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CAR RY FORWARD THE BUSINESS LOSS AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION RELATABLE TO THE SAID UNDERTAKING FOR AND FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE DEMERGER TAKES PLACE; V) THE ENTIRE ACTIVITIES AND OPERATION OF THE SAID UNDERTAKING PERTAINING TO THE ENTIRE FINANCIAL YEAR DURING WHICH THE DEMERGER TAKES PLACE AND THE RESULTANT PROFITS / LOSSES ARISING THEREFROM SHALL BE ASSESSABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE RESU LTING COMPANY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR DURING WHICH THE DEMERGER TAKES PLACE AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE DEMERGED COMPANY. 8 ITA NO.1370/BANG/2011 5.3.6 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, A PAPER BOOK AND THE COMPANY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT SEEKING PERMISSION FOR DEMERGER. 6.0 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE ISSUES AS UNDER : 6.1 THE GROUNDS AT S.NOS.2 & 3 : ON THE ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THESE GROUNDS CHALLENGING THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)S ACTION IN GRANTING OF DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THI S TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER IN ITA NOS.616 TO 618/BANG/2008 DT.10.11.2010 HAS DEALT WITH THE VERY SAME ISSUE THEREIN IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS AND HAVE HELD IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE CONFIRM THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)S ORDER ON THIS POINT AS COVER ED AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THESE TWO GROUNDS RAISED BY REVNEUE. 7. THE GROUNDS AT S.NO.4 : AS REGARDS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVE NUE AT S.NO.4, WE FIND THAT THERE IS A FACTUALLY INCORRECT STATEME NT IN AS MUCH AS IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE RESULTING COMPANYS APPEAL, AS REGARDS ITS ELIGIBILITY TO BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT, WAS ALLOWED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL CIT(APPEALS) . WE FIND FROM A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT HE CLEARLY S TATES IN PARA 6 THEREOF THAT RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, HE ALLOWS THE A SSESSEES DEDUCTION OF RS.1,16,68,627 UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE GROUND NO.4 AS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. 8. THE GROUND NO.5 : IN THIS GROUND REVNEUE SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONSIDER ING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A(7A) OF THE ACT WHICH MANDATES THAT WHERE ANY UNDERTAKING OF AN INDIAN COMPANY IS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER 9 ITA NO.1370/BANG/2011 INDIAN COMPANY IN A SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION OR DEMER GER, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE TO THE AMALGAMATING OR DEMERGED COMPANY FOR THE PREVIO US YEAR IN WHICH THE AMALGAMATION OR DEMERGER TOOK PLACE. IN ORDER TO SEE WHETHER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A(7A) APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ITS PROVISIONS ARE EXTRACTED HER EUNDER : (7A) WHERE ANY UNDERTAKING OF AN INDIAN COMPANY W HICH IS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION IS TRANSFERRED, BEFORE THE EXPIR Y OF THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THIS SECTION, TO ANOTHER INDIAN COMPANY IN A SCHEME OF A MALGAMATION OR DEMERGER, (A) NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THIS SE CTION TO THE AMALGAMATING OR THE DEMERGED COMPANY FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE AMALGAMATION OR THE DEMERGER TAKES PLACE; AND (B) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL, AS FAR A S MAY BE, APPLY TO THE AMALGAMATED OR THE RESULTING COMPANY AS THEY WOULD HAVE APPLIED TO THE AMALGAMATING OR THE DEMERGED COMPANY IF THE AMALGAMATION OR DEMERGER HAD NOT TAK EN PLACE. 8.2 FROM A READING OF SECTION 10A(7A), IT IS CLEAR THAT ITS PROVISIONS APPLY TO A SITUATION WHERE AN UNDERTAKING WHOSE INCOME IS DEDUCTIBLE UND ER SECTION 10A IS TRANSFERRED IN A SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION OR DEMERGER BEFORE THE END OF THE S PECIFIED 10 YEARS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE STPI UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS TRANSFERRED IN A SCHEME OF DEMERGER BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIFIED PERIOD AND THEREFORE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 10A(7A) OF THE ACT APPLY. FURTHER, CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 10A(7A) SPECIFICALLY MANDATES THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE IN THE HANDS OF THE DEMERGED COMPANY FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE DEMERGER TAKES PLACE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS THE DEMERGED COMPANY AND IS TO BE DENIED DEDUCTION. 10A FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2004-05 RELEVA NT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AS THE DEMERGER TOOK PLACE IN THE COURSE OF THIS PERIOD. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 10A BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10 ITA NO.1370/BANG/2011 10A(7A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. WE, THEREFORE , ALLOW THE GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE AT S.NO.5 TO THE EXTENT OF HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE I S NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A(7A) OF THE ACT. 9.1 HAVING HELD AS ABOVE REGARDING GROUND NO.5, WE EXAMINE THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT NO PART OF THE INCOME OF THE STPI UN DERTAKING WHICH GOT DEMERGED FROM THE ASSESSEE AND CAME TO BE MERGED WITH THE RESULTING C OMPANY ON AND FROM 1.10.2004, BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 05-06 AS THE SAME IS TO BE ASSESSED ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE RESULTING COMPANY I.E. M/S. L & T VALDEL ENGINEERING (P) LTD. IN THIS REGARD, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(19AA) WHICH DEFINE DEMERGER AND DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES THEREOF ARE EXTRACTED HERE BELOW : (19AA) 'DEMERGER', IN RELATION TO COMPANIES, MEA NS THE TRANSFER, PURSUANT TO A SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT UNDER SECTIONS 391 TO 394 81 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (1 OF 1956), BY A DEMERGED COMPANY OF ITS ONE OR MORE UND ERTAKINGS TO ANY RESULTING COMPANY IN SUCH A MANNER THAT (I) ALL THE PROPERTY OF THE UNDERTAKING, BEING TRA NSFERRED BY THE DEMERGED COMPANY, IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE DEMERGER, BECOMES THE PROPER TY OF THE RESULTING COMPANY BY VIRTUE OF THE DEMERGER; (II) ALL THE LIABILITIES RELATABLE TO THE UNDERTAKI NG, BEING TRANSFERRED BY THE DEMERGED COMPANY, IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE DEMERGER, BECOME TH E LIABILITIES OF THE RESULTING COMPANY BY VIRTUE OF THE DEMERGER; (III) THE PROPERTY AND THE LIABILITIES OF THE UNDE RTAKING OR UNDERTAKINGS BEING TRANSFERRED BY THE DEMERGED COMPANY ARE TRANSFERRED AT VALUES A PPEARING IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE DEMERGER; (IV) THE RESULTING COMPANY ISSUES, IN CONSIDERATIO N OF THE DEMERGER, ITS SHARES TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE DEMERGED COMPANY ON A PROPORTIO NATE BASIS EXCEPT WHERE THE RESULTING COMPANY ITSELF IS A SHAREHOLDER OF THE DE MERGED COMPANY ; 11 ITA NO.1370/BANG/2011 (V) THE SHAREHOLDERS HOLDING NOT LESS THAN THREE-F OURTHS IN VALUE OF THE SHARES IN THE DEMERGED COMPANY (OTHER THAN SHARES ALREADY HELD TH EREIN IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE DEMERGER, OR BY A NOMINEE FOR, THE RESULTING COMPAN Y OR, ITS SUBSIDIARY) BECOME SHARE-HOLDERS OF THE RESULTING COMPANY OR COMPANIES BY VIRTUE OF THE DEMERGER, OTHERWISE THAN AS A RESULT OF THE ACQUISITION OF TH E PROPERTY OR ASSETS OF THE DEMERGED COMPANY OR ANY UNDERTAKING THEREOF BY THE RESULTING COMPANY; (VI) THE TRANSFER OF THE UNDERTAKING IS ON A GOING CONCERN BASIS; (VII) THE DEMERGER IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDI TIONS, IF ANY, NOTIFIED UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 72A BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN THIS BEHALF. EXPLANATION 1.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, 'UN DERTAKING' SHALL INCLUDE ANY PART OF AN UNDERTAKING, OR A UNIT OR DIVISION OF AN UNDERTA KING OR A BUSINESS ACTIVITY TAKEN AS A WHOLE, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE INDIVIDUAL ASSETS OR LI ABILITIES OR ANY COMBINATION THEREOF NOT CONSTITUTING A BUSINESS ACTIVITY. EXPLANATION 2.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, THE LIABILITIES REFERRED TO IN SUB- CLAUSE (II), SHALL INCLUDE (A) THE LIABILITIES WHICH ARISE OUT OF THE ACTIVIT IES OR OPERATIONS OF THE UNDERTAKING; (B) THE SPECIFIC LOANS OR BORROWINGS (INCLUDING DEB ENTURES) RAISED, INCURRED AND UTILISED SOLELY FOR THE ACTIVITIES OR OPERATIONS OF THE UNDE RTAKING; AND (C) IN CASES, OTHER THAN THOSE REFERRED TO IN CLAU SE (A) OR CLAUSE (B), SO MUCH OF THE AMOUNTS OF GENERAL OR MULTIPURPOSE BORROWINGS, IF A NY, OF THE DEMERGED COMPANY AS STAND IN THE SAME PROPORTION WHICH THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS TRANSFERRED IN A DEMERGER BEARS TO THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE ASSETS OF SUCH DEME RGED COMPANY IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE DEMERGER. EXPLANATION 3.FOR DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE PRO PERTY REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (III), ANY CHANGE IN THE VALUE OF ASSETS CONSEQUENT TO THEIR REVALUATION SHALL BE IGNORED. EXPLANATION 4.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, THE SPLITTING UP OR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF ANY AUTHORITY OR A BODY CONSTITUTED OR ESTABLISH ED UNDER A CENTRAL, STATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT, OR A LOCAL AUTHORITY OR A PUBLIC SE CTOR COMPANY, INTO SEPARATE AUTHORITIES OR BODIES OR LOCAL AUTHORITIES OR COMPA NIES, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A DEMERGER IF SUCH SPLIT UP OR RECONST RUCTION FULFILS SUCH CONDITIONS AS MAY BE NOTIFIED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, BY THE CEN TRAL GOVERNMENT. 12 ITA NO.1370/BANG/2011 9.2 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE DEFINITION THAT AN S TPI UNIT IS SEEN AS A DISTINCT AND SEPARATE BUSINESS ENTITY BY THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH MANDATE S THAT SEPARATE SET OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BE MAINTAINED IN RESPECT OF THE STPI UNDERTAKING AN D THE INCOME OF THE STPI UNIT BE DETERMINED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SO MAINTAINED . THE I.T. ACT ALSO DOES NOT REGARD THE DEMERGER AS A SALE. IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF THIS REA SON THAT THE ACT DOES NOT CONSIDER THE TRANSFER OF AN UNDERTAKING UPON DEMERGER AS AMOUNTI NG TO A SALE OR SPLITTING UP OF AN EXISTING UNIT AND ALLOWS THE RESULTING COMPANY TO CONTINUE T O ENJOY THE BENEFITS BESTOWED UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. IN FACT FROM THE SCHEME OF AMALGAMA TION AS REFERRED TO IN PARA 16 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ORDER (FILED BEFORE US AS PART P APER BOOK) APPROVING THE DEMERGER, IT IS STATED THAT ALL LIABILITIES, DUES AND OBLIGATIONS O F THE DEMERGED UNDERTAKING INCLUDING ACCRETIONS AND APPURTENANCES THERETO BE TRANSFERRED AND VESTED IN THE RESULTING COMPANY AS A GOING CONCERN SO AS TO BECOME AS AND FROM THE APPOINTED D ATE, THE ESTATE, ASSETS, RIGHTS, CLAIMS, TITLES AND INTEREST OF THE RESULTING COMPANY. BY VIRTUE O F THE FACT THAT THE STPI UNDERTAKING IS TRANSFERRED TO THE RESULTING COMPANY AS A GOING CON CERN, IT IS THE RESULTING COMPANY THAT IS GOING TO ENJOY THE PROFITS OR LOSSES OF THE STPI UNIT AS ON 31.3.2005. 10. IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO REFER TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72A(4) OF THE ACT WHICH DEALS WITH THE CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS ES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IN CASE OF DEMERGER, ETC AND THEREFORE THE RELEVANT PROVISION IS EXTRACTED HERE BELOW : 72A(4) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, IN THE CASE OF A DEMERGER, THE ACCUMULATED LOSS AND TH E ALLOWANCE FOR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF THE DEMERGED COMPANY SHALL (A) WHERE SUCH LOSS OR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IS DIRECTLY RELATABLE TO THE UNDERTAKINGS TRANSFERRED TO THE RESULTING COMPANY, BE ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF IN THE HANDS OF THE RESULTING COMPANY; 13 ITA NO.1370/BANG/2011 (B) WHERE SUCH LOSS OR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IS N OT DIRECTLY RELATABLE TO THE UNDERTAKINGS TRANSFERRED TO THE RESULTING COMPANY, BE APPORTIONED BETWEEN THE DEMERGED COMPANY AND THE RESULTING COMPANY IN THE S AME PROPORTION IN WHICH THE ASSETS OF THE UNDERTAKINGS HAVE BEEN RETAINED BY TH E DEMERGED COMPANY AND TRANSFERRED TO THE RESULTING COMPANY, AND BE ALLOWE D TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF IN THE HANDS OF THE DEMERGED COMPANY OR THE RES ULTING COMPANY, AS THE CASE MAY BE. A PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72A(4) REVEA L THAT IT CONSIDERS THE UNDERTAKING WHICH IS DEMERGED AS A DISTINCT AND SEPARATE BUSINESS ENTITY IN AS MUCH AS ONCE IT STANDS DEMERGED, THE CARRY FORWARD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AL LOWANCE WHICH ARE RELATABLE TO THE SAID UNDERTAKING AND AVAILABLE FOR SET OFF ONLY IN THE H ANDS OF THE RESULTING COMPANY AND NO PART OF IT IS ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF IN THE HANDS OF THE DEMERG ED COMPANY AFTER THE DEMERGER. 11.1 AFTER PERUSAL AND CONSIDERATION OF THE PROVISI ON OF SECTIONS 2(19AA), 10A(1), 10A(7A) AND 72A(4) OF THE ACT, IT IS NECESSARY TO ARRIVE AT A H ARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION TO ASSUME THAT THE INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE IS NOT FRUSTRATED ESPECIAL LY IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO REPORTED IN 131 ITR 597 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS RULED THAT A LITERAL CONSTRUCTION OF A ST ATUTE THAT LEADS TO AN ABSURDITY, OR UNJUST RESULT OR MISCHIEF IS TO BE AVOIDED. 11.2 IN THE INSTANT CASE AS PER THE PROVISION OF SE CTION 10A(1) OF THE ACT, THE INCOME OF THE STPI UNDERTAKING FOR THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005-06 IS EXEMPT FROM TAX AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH FACT THERE IS NO DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE (THE DEMERGED COMPANY) HAS SHOWN THE INCOME OF THE STPI UNDERTAKING FOR THE PERIOD 1 .4.2004 TO 30.9.2004 AS ITS INCOME AND THE RESULTING COMPANY HAS SHOWN THE INCOME OF THE STPI UNDERTAKING FOR THE PERIOD 1.10.2004 TO 31.3.2005 AS ITS INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A(1) OF THE ACT, THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THE STPI UNDERTAKING FROM 1.4.2004 TO 31. 3.2005 IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. IN ACCORDANCE 14 ITA NO.1370/BANG/2011 WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A(7A) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE (THE DEMERGED COMPANY) IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AS IT IS THE RESULTING COMPANY WHICH IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005-06. 11.3 IF THE INCOME OF THE STPI UNDERTAKING FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2004 TO 30.9.2004 WERE TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE INC OME BECOME FULLY TAXABLE AS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 10A(7A), THE SAME IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN WHICH EVENT IT RUNS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A(1) OF THE ACT. THIS LEADS TO WHAT THE HON'BLE APEX COURT TERMED AS AN A BSURDITY, OR UNJUST RESULT OR MISCHIEF, KEEPING IN VIEW THE OBJECT, INTENT AND PURPOSE OF L EGISLATING SECTION 10A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 11.4 IN ORDER TO AVOID THIS ABSURDITY OR UNJUST RES ULT OR MISCHIEF, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE INCOME OF THE UNDERTAKING FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR FROM 1.4.2004 TO 31.3.2005 IS DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE RESULTING COMPANY AND NO PART OF IT B E DEEMED TO BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS FINDING OF OURS IS ALSO IN CONSONANCE WITH THE DECI SION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOKBHAI CHIMANBHAI (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE ASSES SEE. FURTHER, AS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SCHEDULE 9 FORMING PART O F THE APPLICATION MADE BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE RESULTING COMPANY IS THE DESTINATION FOR THE SURPLUS OF THE STPI UNDERTAKING FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2004 TO 30.9.20 04 AND THIS FACT IS ALSO IN LINE WITH THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE SAID CASE. 11.5 IT WOULD ALSO BE ONLY PROPER FOR US TO SET RIG HT THE ANOMALIES, IF ANY, AND ENSURE THAT THE CORRECT TAXABLE INCOME BE ASSESSED INSPITE OF THE F ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE RETURNED INCOME NOT BELONGING TO IT. THIS WOULD BE IN ACCOR DANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE 15 ITA NO.1370/BANG/2011 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF BHANDARI METALS & ALLOYS (P) LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPORTED IN 136 ST3 292 AS WELL AS OTH ER HIGH COURTS I) CIT VS. JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS LTD. (306 ITR 42) (DEL) II) CHOKSI METAL REFINERY VS. CIT (107 ITR 62) (GUJ ) III) PAREKH BROTHERS VS. CIT (150 ITR 105) (KER) 11.6 THE FACT THAT THE BOOK ENTRIES MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE MAY NOT BY THEMSELVES LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY US IS NOT MATERIAL AS THE BOOK ENTRIES AT BEST REPRESENT HYPOTHETICAL INCOME AND DID NOT REPRESENT THE REAL INCOME WHICH HAD ACTUALLY ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THIS LEGAL P ROPOSITION ALSO FINDS SUPPORT IN THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES : I) CIT BOMBAY CITY I. VS SHOORJI VALLEBH DAS (46 I TR 144) II) GODHRA ELECTRICITY COMPANY VS. CIT (225 ITR 746 ) 11.7 FURTHER, THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 10A OF THE AC T BEING A BENEFICIAL PROVISION, HAS TO BE AVAILABLE COMPLETELY AND NO PORTION OF IT IS TO BE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED BY THE RIGHT PERSON. THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF BAJAJ TEMPO LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 196 ITR 188 HIGHLIG HTS THE IMPORTANCE OF ENSURING THAT THE BENEFITS CONFERRED BY A BENEFICIAL SECTION REACHED THE INTENDED PERSON. 11.8 IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS ABOVE, WITH RE SPECT TO THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE W.R.T. THE GROUND RAISED AT S.NO.5, WE HOL D THAT NO PART OF THE INCOME OF THE STPI UNDERTAKING FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IS TO B E TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE INCOME OF RS.1,16,68,627 PERTAINING TO THE DEMERGED STPI UNDERTAKING FROM THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE AND PASS NECESSARY ORDERS TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE SAME SO THAT THE SAID INCOME OF RS.1, 16,68,627 IS TREATED AS INCOME OF THE 16 ITA NO.1370/BANG/2011 RESULTING COMPANY NAMELY M/S. L & T VALDEL ENGINEER ING (P) LTD FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND BE BROUGHT TO TAX ACCORDINGLY IN ITS HANDS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS LAID DOWN IN THIS ORDER. 12. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF AS I NDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH SEPT., 2012. SD/- SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) (JASON P BOAZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER *REDDY GP COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, - B BENCH. 6. GUARD FILE. (TRUE COPY ) BY ORDE R SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE .